This is coolbert:
From the Chicago Tribune today:
Where have you heard about this before?
"NATION & WORLD"
“Call to ease troops’ load”
“Using heavy layers of armor to keep troops safe from bullets and bombs is making the Marine Corps too slow on a battlefield where speed and mobility are critical, a senior military leader said Tuesday.”
“Lt. Gen. George Flynn cautioned members of Congress against wrapping them [marines] in so much protective gear they can’t hunt down more agile insurgents”
“’The bottom line is that the focus on armor as the principal means of protecting our force is making us too heavy’”
Right. The body armor, bullet resistant, as worn by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghan, IS effective. But of course, there is no free lunch. Is heavy and adds considerable weight to the troops load IN ADDITION to the basic fighting AND existence load.
AND, for warfare of the nature found in the mountainous terrain of Afghan, at ALTITUDE, such body armor, effective as it is, may actually present a hindrance [that is why it is called impedimenta, as in impediment] rather than an asset!
Troops, marines or otherwise, bogged down with excessive weight, NOT acclimatized to the climate, terrain, or the nature of the Afghan enemy, are now and are going to have a difficult time just to keep up with the ephemeral Afghan foe, much less catch and defeat that adversary [Taliban/Al Qaeda fighter]!
[your average-everyday Taliban “troop” is equipped with an AK, a basic load of ammo, his clothes, and that is that. MAYBE NOT EVEN WEARING SHOES OR ANY FOOTWEAR AT ALL]
A mechanized infantry force equipped with such body armor as has been used in Iraq is not encumbered to the degree as would the light infantry type unit that is needed in Afghan! WHAT WORKED IN IRAQ IS NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO WORK IN AFGHAN?